Kiwibrown Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Wentz had a few good seasons including one that led to big **** nick winning a superbowl. The eagles fell into disarray shortly after. Would you do the trade again. For the browns I'm not sure we turned a lot of that capital into anything other than nfl vapour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iknowcool Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 They almost certainly wouldn't have been in a position to win the Super Bowl without Wentz's performance in 2017, so probably, yeah. Even when you consider how well Foles did in the postseason, he almost certainly wouldn't have sustained it had he been asked to play a full year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 10 times out of 10. Who knows how butterfly effect changes things. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 (edited) Yes. Absolutely. Philly got their first SB trophy and he was part of the reason for it. That alone is priceless to me. Was it a good long-term investment? Obviously not. But I'll take getting a flash in the pan SB trophy over not getting one at all any day of the week. Plus, with the way NFL contract works now, it made sense at the time. The FO went all-in to get the QB they believed in and doubled down on that belief to build around him while he was still on his rookie 4 year deal. Which is how you're supposed to do it in modern times. Edited August 4, 2021 by JAF-N72EX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyMossIsBoss Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 (edited) Of course, whatever Wentz is now, he was a very good QB in 2017, who played a huge role in us winning 13 games and getting HFA, which played a huge role in reaching the SB. History tells us it'd be a pretty big gamble to bet on Foles playing the way he did during the postseason run for all of 2017, in fact his regular season play in 2017 & 2018 is probably a pretty good indication of what we'd get, and it's a far cry from the MVP level play Wentz provided. Furthermore, we didn't flame out from lack of capital due to the haul we gave up to get Wentz. We simply did an awful job drafting, and players, coaches, the whole building really, got complacent. I see no reason the Eagles would not make this same trade with 20/20 hindsight. It might be another story if we were talking 10+ 1st round picks and Eagles were still feeling the effects of the trade today; granted I still would call it easily the right move. SBs are not easy to come by. Edited August 4, 2021 by RandyMossIsBoss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Wentz was an MVP who was instrumental in getting the number 1 seed allowing their back up to have a bye and play at home in the playoffs. That’s before you even get into the possibility that whoever else is starting never gets injured and there is no compelling reason to give Foles a chance to go on an amazing run. It was worth it just for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiltman Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 It's certainly a tough question to answer, mainly because of that Super Bowl that we got off the backs of a near-MVPlike season out of Wentz. They probably don't highway rob the Vikings for that 1st for Sam Bradford then, but we'd still have that 1st round pick in 2017 which would've been Mahomes or Watson (unless they took Paxton Lynch in 2016). So you could argue we'd be in a spot to win way more Super Bowls. That Bradford trade really lessoned the impact of that trade. Essentially made it a 2nd, 3rd and mid 4th round value (pick 100->139), and this Wentz trade will get the Eagles back at least a 2nd & 3rd (that conditional 1st is looking doubtful). So it's weird that all said and done they really didn't lose much of anything and got a Super Bowl out of it. I'd probably just take the guaranteed Super Bowl being a fan, especially with how good of a win it was. I'd 100% go back and change the way they went in the Wentz vs Foles decision after 2018. Would've very easily gotten some premium picks for Wentz back then, still get the SB52 win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 13 hours ago, Danger said: 10 times out of 10. Who knows how butterfly effect changes things. Butterfly effect: You don't trade for Wentz. You instead work a trade for Andrew Luck. Luck plays behind a competent OL and becomes your franchise QB. You win 4 Superbowls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggie. Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 I think the better question is if they should have traded him earlier. 2017 Wentz was one of the most overrated seasons for a QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 hour ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: Butterfly effect: You don't trade for Wentz. You instead work a trade for Andrew Luck. Luck plays behind a competent OL and becomes your franchise QB. You win 4 Superbowls. Alternatively. Luck still gets hurt, Luck still retires, we become a perennial bottom feeder and have no Super Bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 7 minutes ago, Danger said: Alternatively. Luck still gets hurt, Luck still retires, we become a perennial bottom feeder and have no Super Bowl. OR Luck gets hurt Luck still retires You don't have to trade for Wentz You get Patrick Mahomes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOUCAN Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 6 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: OR Luck gets hurt Luck still retires You don't have to trade for Wentz You get Patrick Mahomes AND Pat has lesser weapons than he ever has Doesn't pan out the way we think he would be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 1 hour ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: OR Luck gets hurt Luck still retires You don't have to trade for Wentz You get Patrick Mahomes 1 hour ago, JoshstraDaymus said: AND Pat has lesser weapons than he ever has Doesn't pan out the way we think he would be Especially when you're going from the greatest QB whisperer of all time, Andy Reid, to someone who makes all of his players worse, Doug Pederson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 18 hours ago, Kiwibrown said: Wentz had a few good seasons including one that led to big **** nick winning a superbowl. The eagles fell into disarray shortly after. Would you do the trade again. For the browns I'm not sure we turned a lot of that capital into anything other than nfl vapour. 10000%. The first Superbowl in my lifetime and since 1960 is worth the likely few years of disarray that we may have from transitioning him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.